Mach bands and multiscale models of spatial vision:the role of first, second, and third derivative operators in encoding bars and edges

Ernst Mach observed that light or dark bands could be seen at abrupt changes of luminance gradient in the absence of peaks or troughs in luminance. Many models of feature detection share the idea that bars, lines, and Mach bands are found at peaks and troughs in the output of even-symmetric spatial filters. Our experiments assessed the appearance of Mach bands (position and width) and the probability of seeing them on a novel set of generalized Gaussian edges. Mach band probability was mainly determined by the shape of the luminance profile and increased with the sharpness of its corners, controlled by a single parameter (n). Doubling or halving the size of the images had no significant effect. Variations in contrast (20%-80%) and duration (50-300 ms) had relatively minor effects. These results rule out the idea that Mach bands depend simply on the amplitude of the second derivative, but a multiscale model, based on Gaussian-smoothed first- and second-derivative filtering, can account accurately for the probability and perceived spatial layout of the bands. A key idea is that Mach band visibility depends on the ratio of second- to first-derivative responses at peaks in the second-derivative scale-space map. This ratio is approximately scale-invariant and increases with the sharpness of the corners of the luminance ramp, as observed. The edges of Mach bands pose a surprisingly difficult challenge for models of edge detection, but a nonlinear third-derivative operation is shown to predict the locations of Mach band edges strikingly well. Mach bands thus shed new light on the role of multiscale filtering systems in feature coding

Shading and texture:Separate information channels with a common adaptation mechanism?

We outline a scheme for the way in which early vision may handle information about shading (luminance modulation, LM) and texture (contrast modulation, CM). Previous work on the detection of gratings has found no sub-threshold summation, and no cross-adaptation, between LM and CM patterns. This strongly implied separate channels for the detection of LM and CM structure. However, we now report experiments in which adapting to LM (or CM) gratings creates tilt aftereffects of similar magnitude on both LM and CM test gratings, and reduces the perceived strength (modulation depth) of LM and CM gratings to a similar extent. This transfer of aftereffects between LM and CM might suggest a second stage of processing at which LM and CM information is integrated. The nature of this integration, however, is unclear and several simple predictions are not fulfilled. Firstly, one might expect the integration stage to lose identity information about whether the pattern was LM or CM. We show instead that the identity of barely detectable LM and CM patterns is not lost. Secondly, when LM and CM gratings are combined in-phase or out-of-phase we find no evidence for cancellation, nor for 'phase-blindness'. These results suggest that information about LM and CM is not pooled or merged - shading is not confused with texture variation. We suggest that LM and CM signals are carried by separate channels, but they share a common adaptation mechanism that accounts for the almost complete transfer of perceptual aftereffects

Luminance gradient at object borders communicates object location to the human oculomotor system

The locations of objects in our environment constitute arguably the most important piece of information our visual system must convey to facilitate successful visually guided behaviour. However, the relevant objects are usually not point-like and do not have one unique location attribute. Relatively little is known about how the visual system represents the location of such large objects as visual processing is, both on neural and perceptual level, highly edge dominated. In this study, human observers made saccades to the centres of luminance defined squares (width 4 deg), which appeared at random locations (8 deg eccentricity). The phase structure of the square was manipulated such that the points of maximum luminance gradient at the square’s edges shifted from trial to trial. The average saccade endpoints of all subjects followed those shifts in remarkable quantitative agreement. Further experiments showed that the shifts were caused by the edge manipulations, not by changes in luminance structure near the centre of the square or outside the square. We conclude that the human visual system programs saccades to large luminance defined square objects based on edge locations derived from the points of maximum luminance gradients at the square’s edges.Peer reviewe

Mach edges: a critical test of the nonlinear 3rd derivative model for edge-detection

Feature detection is a crucial stage of visual processing. In previous feature-marking experiments we found that peaks in the 3rd derivative of the luminance profile can signify edges where there are no 1st derivative peaks nor 2nd derivative zero-crossings (Wallis and George 'Mach edges' (the edges of Mach bands) were nicely predicted by a new nonlinear model based on 3rd derivative filtering. As a critical test of the model, we now use a new class of stimuli, formed by adding a linear luminance ramp to the blurred triangle waves used previously. The ramp has no effect on the second or higher derivatives, but the nonlinear model predicts a shift from seeing two edges to seeing only one edge as the added ramp gradient increases. In experiment 1, subjects judged whether one or two edges were visible on each trial. In experiment 2, subjects used a cursor to mark perceived edges and bars. The position and polarity of the marked edges were close to model predictions. Both experiments produced the predicted shift from two to one Mach edge, but the shift was less complete than predicted. We conclude that the model is a useful predictor of edge perception, but needs some modification

Third-derivative filters predict edge locations in spatial vision

Edge detection is crucial in visual processing. Previous computational and psychophysical models have often used peaks in the gradient or zero-crossings in the 2nd derivative to signal edges. We tested these approaches using a stimulus that has no such features. Its luminance profile was a triangle wave, blurred by a rectangular function. Subjects marked the position and polarity of perceived edges. For all blur widths tested, observers marked edges at or near 3rd derivative maxima, even though these were not 1st derivative maxima or 2nd derivative zero-crossings, at any scale. These results are predicted by a new nonlinear model based on 3rd derivative filtering. As a critical test, we added a ramp of variable slope to the blurred triangle-wave luminance profile. The ramp has no effect on the (linear) 2nd or higher derivatives, but the nonlinear model predicts a shift from seeing two edges to seeing one edge as the ramp gradient increases. Results of two experiments confirmed such a shift, thus supporting the new model. [Supported by the Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council]

Mach edges: a key role for 3rd derivative filters in spatial vision

Edges are key points of information in visual scenes. One important class of models supposes that edges correspond to the steepest parts of the luminance profile, implying that they can be found as peaks and troughs in the response of a gradient (first-derivative) filter, or as zero-crossings (ZCs) in the second-derivative. A variety of multi-scale models are based on this idea. We tested this approach by devising a stimulus that has no local peaks of gradient and no ZCs, at any scale. Our stimulus profile is analogous to the classic Mach-band stimulus, but it is the local luminance gradient (not the absolute luminance) that increases as a linear ramp between two plateaux. The luminance profile is a smoothed triangle wave and is obtained by integrating the gradient profile. Subjects used a cursor to mark the position and polarity of perceived edges. For all the ramp-widths tested, observers marked edges at or close to the corner points in the gradient profile, even though these were not gradient maxima. These new Mach edges correspond to peaks and troughs in the third-derivative. They are analogous to Mach bands - light and dark bars are seen where there are no luminance peaks but there are peaks in the second derivative. Here, peaks in the third derivative were seen as light-to-dark edges, troughs as dark-to-light edges. Thus Mach edges are inconsistent with many standard edge detectors, but are nicely predicted by a new model that uses a (nonlinear) third-derivative operator to find edge points

Brightening and Dimming Aftereffects at Low and High Luminance

Adaptation to a spatially uniform field that increases or decreases in luminance over time yields a “ramp aftereffect”, whereby a steady, uniform luminance appears to dim or brighten, and an appropriate non-uniform test field appears to move. We measured the duration of this aftereffect of adaptation to ascending and descending luminance for a wide range of temporal frequencies and luminance amplitudes. Three types of luminance ramp profiles were used: linear, logarithmic, and exponential. The duration of the motion aftereffect increased as amplitude increased, regardless of the frequency, slope, or ramp profile of the adapting pattern. At low luminance, this result held for ascending luminance adaptation, but the duration of the aftereffect was significantly reduced for descending luminance adaptation. This reduction in the duration of the aftereffect at low luminance is consistent with differential recruitment of temporally tuned cells of the ON and OFF pathways, but the relative independence of the effect from temporal frequency is not

Binocular fusion, suppression and diplopia for blurred edges

Purpose: (1) To devise a model-based method for estimating the probabilities of binocular fusion, interocular suppression and diplopia from psychophysical judgements, (2) To map out the way fusion, suppression and diplopia vary with binocular disparity and blur of single edges shown to each eye, (3) To compare the binocular interactions found for edges of the same vs opposite contrast polarity. Methods: Test images were single, horizontal, Gaussian-blurred edges, with blur B = 1-32 min arc, and vertical disparity 0-8.B, shown for 200 ms. In the main experiment, observers reported whether they saw one central edge, one offset edge, or two edges. We argue that the relation between these three response categories and the three perceptual states (fusion, suppression, diplopia) is indirect and likely to be distorted by positional noise and criterion effects, and so we developed a descriptive, probabilistic model to estimate both the perceptual states and the noise/criterion parameters from the data. Results: (1) Using simulated data, we validated the model-based method by showing that it recovered fairly accurately the disparity ranges for fusion and suppression, (2) The disparity range for fusion (Panum's limit) increased greatly with blur, in line with previous studies. The disparity range for suppression was similar to the fusion limit at large blurs, but two or three times the fusion limit at small blurs. This meant that diplopia was much more prevalent at larger blurs, (3) Diplopia was much more frequent when the two edges had opposite contrast polarity. A formal comparison of models indicated that fusion occurs for same, but not opposite, polarities. Probability of suppression was greater for unequal contrasts, and it was always the lower-contrast edge that was suppressed. Conclusions: Our model-based data analysis offers a useful tool for probing binocular fusion and suppression psychophysically. The disparity range for fusion increased with edge blur but fell short of complete scale-invariance. The disparity range for suppression also increased with blur but was not close to scale-invariance. Single vision occurs through fusion, but also beyond the fusion range, through suppression. Thus suppression can serve as a mechanism for extending single vision to larger disparities, but mainly for sharper edges where the fusion range is small (5-10 min arc). For large blurs the fusion range is so much larger that no such extension may be needed

Edges and bars: where do people see features in 1-D images?

AbstractThere have been two main approaches to feature detection in human and computer vision––based either on the luminance distribution and its spatial derivatives, or on the spatial distribution of local contrast energy. Thus, bars and edges might arise from peaks of luminance and luminance gradient respectively, or bars and edges might be found at peaks of local energy, where local phases are aligned across spatial frequency. This basic issue of definition is important because it guides more detailed models and interpretations of early vision. Which approach better describes the perceived positions of features in images? We used the class of 1-D images defined by Morrone and Burr in which the amplitude spectrum is that of a (partially blurred) square-wave and all Fourier components have a common phase. Observers used a cursor to mark where bars and edges were seen for different test phases (Experiment 1) or judged the spatial alignment of contours that had different phases (e.g. 0° and 45°; Experiment 2). The feature positions defined by both tasks shifted systematically to the left or right according to the sign of the phase offset, increasing with the degree of blur. These shifts were well predicted by the location of luminance peaks (bars) and gradient peaks (edges), but not by energy peaks which (by design) predicted no shift at all. These results encourage models based on a Gaussian-derivative framework, but do not support the idea that human vision uses points of phase alignment to find local, first-order features. Nevertheless, we argue that both approaches are presently incomplete and a better understanding of early vision may combine insights from both